Creationist Catholic 2007

[edwest2]

Thank you for your reply. I am only looking for an analysis that goes beyond ‘just say yes to evolution’ and the implications of saying yes. According to that article I referenced, science is going forward and the backward thing holding it back is religion. Just get that out of the way… and, well, what?

We don’t battle against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities and wickedness in high places. I remember the Enron representative trying not to explain to Ted Koeppel why energy prices were different in different parts of the country, and then, a little later, the scandal broke. But when “too much is never enough” and life contains no absolutes, absolutely anything is possible. Fortunately, God, through the Church, has established a way for man to live life more fully.

No, not all evolutionists are social engineers. But it is clear that evolution has become dogma, not to be criticized and heavily defended by committed individuals, of which some are here. They show their committment daily. Have you noticed that there’s is something that goes above and beyond the call of duty? That it resembles more of a work assignment than an exchange of ideas? That any ideas that oppose this dogma are always attacked and often quite viciously? Those who deviate from the dogma are likened to terrorists or the mentally ill? It seems to me that what is being protected here is more than ‘just’ science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

— We don’t get dumber over time, but we appear much smarter.—

I would argue that we are much, much dumber in applying ourselves to the things of God. We have, unfortunately, allowed science to substitute for God’s providence – and God has been essentially eliminated from minds and hearts of millions on this basis.

G.K. Chesterton would agree with you.

Now there is very good ground for guessing that religion did not originally come from some detail that was forgotten because it was too small to be traced. Much more probably it was an idea that was abandoned because it was too large to be managed. There is very good reason to suppose that many people did begin with the simple but overwhelming idea of one God who governs all and afterwards fell away into such things as demon-worship almost as a sort of secret dissipation.

Wilhelm Schmidt would agree with you too.

Schmidt showed that a belief in a Supreme Being is found among all of the people of the most primitive culture. He also found that the geographical distribution of these most ancient peoples completely encircles the earth. It is reasonable to assume that their common belief in a Supreme Being must have been deeply and strongly rooted in the even more ancient culture they shared before the individual groups separated from one another.

Schmidt concludes his argument thus:

Actually the history of religion here constructs a new proof for the existence of God: the oldest religion of mankind cannot be understood in its entirety, fullness and unique character, unless one assumes the existence and operation of God who created it created it in that He Himself personally instructed the men of that age in their beliefs, moral commandments and acts of worship.

The question remains, however, as to how man could forget or abandon a pure religion. Schmidt describes the process as one of decay, resulting from the influence of animism, manism and magic. Animism, which was at first a general mental attitude in which man saw spirits in all natural objects, began to encroach on the true religion when man gradually accorded to these spirits exclusive power, thus elevating them to religious status. The same process occurred with manism or ancestor worship. Magic and the practice of sorcery may have been anti religious from the beginning, seeking access to secret powers of nature even in opposition to the will of the deity. Or, it could have sprung from religion itself when the words of prayers and rituals were emptied of their real meaning and the mere external formula was expected to produce the results.

Quoting from the Origin and Growth of Religion:

Thereafter, as external civilization increased in splendor and wealth, so religion came to be expressed in forms of ever -increasing magnificence and opulence. Images of gods and demons multiplied to an extent that defies all classification. Wealthy temples, shrines, and groves arose; more priests and servants, more sacrifices and ceremonies were instituted. Despite the glory and wealth of the outward form, the inner kernel of religion often disappeared and its essential strength was weakened. The results of this, both moral and social, were anything but desirable, leading to extreme degradation and even to the deification of the immoral and antisocial. The principal cause of this corruption was that the figure of the Supreme Being was sinking further and further into the background…

But all the while, the ancient primitive religion still continued among the few remainders of the primitive culture, preserved by fragmentary peoples driven into the most distant regions. Yet in their condition of stagnation, poverty and insignificance, even there it must necessarily have lost much of its power and greatness, so that even among such peoples it is much too late to find a true image of the faith of really primitive men. It remains for us, by dint of laborious research, to put gradually together from many faded fragments a life like picture of this religion.

Of course, there’s also Pope Benedict XVI as well…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Of course, there’s also Pope Benedict XVI as well…

Consequently, I agree with Chesterton and Schmidt on this. Pope Benedict XVI agres with Schmidt as well…

What significance, now, does this insight have for the understanding of the creation account? The first thing to be said is this: Israel always believed in the Creator God, and this faith it shared with all the great civilizations of the ancient world. For, even in the moments when monotheism was eclipsed, all the great civilizations always knew of the Creator of heaven and earth. There is a surprising commonality here even between civilizations that could never have been in touch with one another. In this commonality we can get a good grasp of the profound and never altogether lost contact that human beings had with God’s truth. In Israel itself the creation theme went through several different stages. It was never completely absent, but it was not always equally important.

In short we all agree with you reggieM on this point. I think there’s very good reason to think that humanity is indeed getting less intelligent in some sense of The Word as time goes by.

 

[edwest2]

Look at how many times God sent the prophets to the people of Israel, telling them to repent of their sins. And in the New Testament where Jesus refers to the treatment the prophets received. A few did repent and God withheld His wrath.

In our quest for knowledge and pursuit of invention, other truths, other forms of reason sometimes are lost because the eyes are focused on some need of this world and not what is right by God. In a place called Catholic Answers, this perspective needs to be encouraged. We can render to Caesar what is Caesar’s but need to render to God what is God’s.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, not all evolutionists are social engineers. But it is clear that evolution has become dogma, not to be criticized and heavily defended by committed individuals, of which some are here. They show their committment daily. Have you noticed that there’s is something that goes above and beyond the call of duty? That it resembles more of a work assignment than an exchange of ideas? That any ideas that oppose this dogma are always attacked and often quite viciously? Those who deviate from the dogma are likened to terrorists or the mentally ill? It seems to me that what is being protected here is more than ‘just’ science.

God bless,
Ed

I would only be cautious not to mistake one’s passion for a topic for a conspiracy against the Church.

I think there are indeed good, holy and pure reasons to believe that God may have indeed used evolution to speciate life on earth. I used to think that young earth creationism scared me away these reasons, but I no longer think this is fully true. Rather, I think that those who actually promote theistic evolution simply do an extremely poor job explaining it.

Once I was able to read about evolution without any bias whatsoever, I was able to come to grips with its scientific reality much more easilly.

Likewise, now that I am able to more properly divorce poor philosophical arguments (like the “Deceiver God” argument is) from the theory of evolution itself – and look past these extremely sloppy “internet” arguments to see any possibly authentic parables that Christ himself would use if he were to speak of evolution and the kingdom of God in the same way he used money, salt, light, oil, etc. in parabollic language – my mind was finally more at peace with God using evolution to speciate life on earth.

Although I will never completely dismiss special creation or even a universe created with the appearance of age (because they are possible), I think theistic evoution is actually quite intrinsically beautful the more I think about it in God’s potential methodical perspective. I really do think that it’s highly probable that God used evolution to speciate life on earth.

 

[edwest2]

“highly probable” This in contrast to the “evolution is a fact” statement posted here in the past. Conspiracies aside, a careful reading of atheist and humanist web sites shows an ideological conflict quite clearly.

Early in the 20th Century, the relatively new idea of evolution and genetics was used to justify the sterilization of idiots and other threats to the gene pool against their will. This by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Also, early in the 20th Century, various State models were proposed and carried out, like Communism. I recommend the book, Stamping out the Virus. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party was another.

So you see, as the “scientific method” was applied to various things labeled social problems, experiments were carried out. The U.S.S.R. collapsed by the end of the 20th Century at the cost of millions of lives. The Nazi regime was a study in methodical horror perpetrated on human beings.

For those who believe that chance and natural selection are all, and that this life is all there is, there is a ‘natural’ tendency to maximize profits and pleasures. To step on and over anyone or anything that is in the way. This is the ideological struggle. To say otherwise is heresy, and to presume that guilt, modesty, decency and civility matter. The evidence that they don’t is being presented daily by the ‘popular’ media. You know what it’s like when you exclude yourself from a group, people automatically think that you think you are better than them. Which is not true in this case.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Interesting. The old “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

God bless,
Ed

I wouldn’t quite say that it’s directly related to atheism. Although it does kind of remind me of a variation of Matthew 12:38 to be honest.

Jesus’ response to their demand for evidence wasn’t pleasant either-- probably because the religious leaders of the time should have known better.

Perhaps the modern day demand for evidence of design or creation indicates an atheism of belief that God 'actively" creates within the world around us.

How would the sign of Jonah apply to this situaiton-- if at all?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

“highly probable” This in contrast to the “evolution is a fact” statement posted here in the past. Conspiracies aside, a careful reading of atheist and humanist web sites shows an ideological conflict quite clearly.

Early in the 20th Century, the relatively new idea of evolution and genetics was used to justify the sterilization of idiots and other threats to the gene pool against their will. This by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Also, early in the 20th Century, various State models were proposed and carried out, like Communism. I recommend the book, Stamping out the Virus. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party was another.

So you see, as the “scientific method” was applied to various things labeled social problems, experiments were carried out. The U.S.S.R. collapsed by the end of the 20th Century at the cost of millions of lives. The Nazi regime was a study in methodical horror perpetrated on human beings.

For those who believe that chance and natural selection are all, and that this life is all there is, there is a ‘natural’ tendency to maximize profits and pleasures. To step on and over anyone or anything that is in the way. This is the ideological struggle. To say otherwise is heresy, and to presume that guilt, modesty, decency and civility matter. The evidence that they don’t is being presented daily by the ‘popular’ media. You know what it’s like when you exclude yourself from a group, people automatically think that you think you are better than them. Which is not true in this case.

God bless,
Ed

Have you ever read Jeremy Rifkins book Biotech Century?

It’s a very insightful book in my opinion, even if it does have its detractors. In it, he addressed many of the concern that you rightfully raise regarding this debate in a very positive and constructive manner that seeks to offer some solutions to the modern day problems we face.

I would highly recommend it for anyone.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ed asks:

And this means what?

Barbarian explains:
Science is merely a way of learning about the physical universe; nothing else we do comes close to being as effective for that. It has been useful in making our lives better, but it is primarily just for learning about this world.

But it can’t address the supernatural. Just can’t. The supernatural can’t be tied down to evidence and inferences from it.

Ed completely misses the point:

Interesting. The old “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

No, Ed. It’s “science can’t shore up your faith, if your faith isn’t strong enough on its own.”

If you can’t do that, science can’t do it for you. Can’t, Ed. And it shouldn’t have to. God gave you everything necessary to accept Him. Just do it, and quit hoping science will do it for you.

It can’t.

 

[The_Barbarian]

But it is clear that evolution has become dogma, not to be criticized and heavily defended by committed individuals, of which some are here.

If it was dogma, then it wouldn’t change from time to time when the evidence so indicated.

They show their committment daily. Have you noticed that there’s is something that goes above and beyond the call of duty? That it resembles more of a work assignment than an exchange of ideas?

Sounds like Ed to me. You’ve been pushing a doctrine that in part is contrary to the teaching of the Church, and doing it with relentless effort.

That any ideas that oppose this dogma are always attacked and often quite viciously?

You mean like hinting that the Pope and those who agree with him on common descent are atheists?

Those who deviate from the dogma are likened to terrorists or the mentally ill?

You did suggest that there was communism invoved, didn’t you? Oh, and the Nazis. (of course)

It seems to me that what is being protected here is more than ‘just’ science.

Yep. The Magisterium of the Church. If you feel this strongly, why not just find a denomination that agrees with you on this point?

If you don’t, why not just let God decide and go on?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Thank you for your reply. I am only looking for an analysis that goes beyond ‘just say yes to evolution’ and the implications of saying yes. According to that article I referenced, science is going forward and the backward thing holding it back is religion. Just get that out of the way… and, well, what?

God bless,
Ed

But that article doesn’t speak for all scientists Ed.

Science can** (and does) **demonstrate the supernatural in the lives of people around us by virtue of its ability to measure the physical effects of spiritual actions for example. Science can’t measure God. But science can measure the effects of God’s divine actions within his creation.

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but, as an example, it needs to be stressed that science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies.

There is no “scientific” (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians.

No other religion has succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that prayer to their God has any efficacy in healing. In fact, studies that have used intercessors from multiple religious backgrounds have failed to prove the efficacy of prayer.

The Scriptures declares that Jesus Christ has power over life and death and sickness and is able to heal us, both physically and spiritually.

Me personally, I think that God’s divine and caring power over life and death and sickness has also most likely intervened throughout the scope of earth’s evolutionary history to lovingly reproduce the life we have seen speciated today.

 

[hecd2]

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but, as an example, it needs to be stressed that science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies.

There is no “scientific” (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians.

No other religion has succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that prayer to their God has any efficacy in healing.

Unfortunately, neither has Christianity. The consensus view of many studies on IP is that there is no discernible effect. See for example Masters, Spielmann and Goodson, “Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review”, Ann Behav Med 32, 21 - 26 (2006):
“RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results. CONCLUSIONS: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies.”

One problem with the early studies that your link quotes is that they used many measures to determine outcomes, only a tiny fraction of which show a statistically significant difference between the test and control group. The problem is that in other studies the measures that are positive become neutral or negative. The sample sizes are also very small.

Another recent study by Hodge concluded that IP results in a small but significant positive result. That analysis has severely criticised for its methods, and for including a study conducted by a researcher who has been convicted of fraud. See here for a thorough criticism of this analysis:
theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=60

The huge STEP trial was also solidly negative.

So I’m afraid that the evidence for the efficacy of IP is severely lacking. If someone applied to the FDA for approval to use IP as a therapeutic intervention on the basis of this data it would be rejected on the grounds of inefficacy. Sorry about that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Unfortunately, neither has Christianity. The consensus view of many studies on IP is that there is no discernible effect. See for example Masters, Spielmann and Goodson, “Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review”, Ann Behav Med 32, 21 - 26 (2006):

“RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results. CONCLUSIONS: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies.”

There’s also problems with the outcomes of the studies that you have cited as well.

Another recent study by Hodge concluded that IP results in a small but significant positive result. That analysis has severely criticised for its methods, and for including a study conducted by a researcher who has been convicted of fraud. See here for a thorough criticism of this analysis:
theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=60

Are you saying that people who purport the effectiveness of prayer are actually engaging in fraud or delusion?

Even if one of the men were engaged in fraudulent activity, this doesn’t diminish the effectiveness of true research– just like someone engaging in the famous “Piltdown Man” hoax doesn’t negate the other valid research which certainly does validate the theory of evolution.

The huge STEP trial was also solidly negative.

Or, perhaps biased in the wrong direction.

So I’m afraid that the evidence for the efficacy of IP is severely lacking. If someone applied to the FDA for approval to use IP as a therapeutic intervention on the basis of this data it would be rejected on the grounds of inefficacy. Sorry about that.

Only because they don’t want to see it in the first place.

Sorry about that hecd2.

I can’t help it if they’re willingly ignorant to the point that they can’t even allow people to pray the way God inspires them to pray.

Providing ‘canned prayers’ to people and then measuring the ineffectiveness of the prayers which are not theirs to being with is probably the stupidist way to engage in scientific research one can engage in.

Researcher’s Hypothesis: Doing something that doesn’t work won’t work.

Researcher’s Experiment: Provide prepared prayers which will reduce the effectiveness of their prayers.

Researcher’s Conclusion: Doing something that doesn’t work won’t work.

In other words, the reaserch you cited doesn’t actually work to prove whether prayer works or not.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

When the prayers are given to the person in order to ‘reduce bias’, this alone actually negates the direct effects of the intercessory prayer Alec.

Do you actually know what prayer is or what these studies are seeking to prove?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And here is an example of the current scientific viewpoit: “Stop lying to your children, tell them the truth.” And what “truth” is that? “See, naturalist evolution brought you here, nothing else did.”

**Yep science doesnt much care for lying…and guess what? a lot of us Catholics don’t either. You continue to ascribe theological statements to scientific statements. Show me where science has said “nothing else did.” You make this stuff up. Science doesn’t speak to it. As you quoted us yourself. Benedict has said that science cannot properly speak to God’s involvement. Why can’t you accept that and move on? Instead you continue to defy the church. **

“See, you are liberated now from the supernatural and man will soar to new heights!” And the serpent spoke to Eve: Genesis 3:5
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

About man: “We will become more powerful than any god we can imagine!” Transhumanism, Ray Kurzweil. The coming of spiritual machines.

Read The Aboilition of Man by C.S. Lewis, because that is what man wants; to go from a biological mechanism to one composed of metal and circuits. That way, when his mind is transferred into the artificial body he will have completed running away from God. And become the Terminator, transcending all right and wrong, abolishing his humanity in the process.

**Oh, so you are afraid of robots now? **

Ed

Ed we have been at this for like over 2 months now. You have conceded 14 times now that evolution in some form is apparently the case, though God was the director." Then, like clockwork, you start all over again, this is now the 4th time in 2 months, with a new thread and you pretend to start from the beginning with the same tired and refuted arguments. You are purely stubborn in denying the Church’s position. We’ve all read your favorite pope, Pius, and seen how you can barely stomach Benedict or JPII on this issue because they are against you. We can continue however if that is what you like.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And this means what? Science is this perfect thing from which all good comes? This means what?

God bless,
Ed

Please explain how to formulate an experiment that starts with the proposition you claim must be made: God is the author of what I am trying to investigate. Just one example will do. How does one bring God into the theoretical equation? You claim it must, so show us how to do it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Interesting. The old “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

That in no way whatsoever reflects what he said. You are not understanding his statement at all. Science by definition has no ability to study God. What is so hard to understand here?

That has been my point all along. The naturalist, materialist, this is all there is, way of viewing human origins is bankrupt without the very necessary connection to the hand of God.

**No, Science never says this. You keep adding this tag on. The scientist says, This is the way things appear to be and work. It stops there. You keep adding on “this is all there is”. Why can’t you see that Theology adds the other part to the equation. It’s their province to discuss God. Do you go to home ec class and learn woodworking? **

This will always be my point. But the atheist rhetoric that points people away from that is rather loud here. Without science, you don’t have things. Well, without God, you don’t have people, scientists, who recognized His hand in their work. But, comments like yours only causes needless separation, a harmful separation that does not deal with the complete human person.

**Well good, Ed, you are back to calling “unnamed persons” atheists again as your straw fall back argument. Nobody points people away from God, we just have a clear and rational understanding as to who does what. Most of what you say here simply makes no sense…without God you don’t have…There is a separation between science and theology because all disciplines do this. try examining a college course booklet and you will see that. There is no electronics/God class, nor astronomy and the trinity class. **

This is Catholic Answers, and I want to see that Catholics here get the Catholic perspective. I understand that science is only a tool that is useful to a point. Yet atheist forums tell me that science and naturalism and materialism are all there is. I want Catholics to avoid making the mistake of thinking like that.

**Straighten them out then on these “atheistic/naturalism” sites. No one here is confused. You are only attempting to add untruthful discourse to this discussion. It is wrong to suggest that science must relate to God in its work. YOU have sited the evidence for this proposition yourself. **
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, not all evolutionists are social engineers. But it is clear that evolution has become dogma, not to be criticized and heavily defended by committed individuals, of which some are here. They show their committment daily. Have you noticed that there’s is something that goes above and beyond the call of duty? That it resembles more of a work assignment than an exchange of ideas? That any ideas that oppose this dogma are always attacked and often quite viciously? Those who deviate from the dogma are likened to terrorists or the mentally ill? It seems to me that what is being protected here is more than ‘just’ science.

**Ed you can continue in this vein to impugn the integrity of unnamed people for stating the truth, but it will not wash. You are the one stating untruths as truth here. You ironically mistakenly even cited the very proof against your own perferred belief, that science must speak about God in its investigations. Now you would suggest we are working for whom? You are most right. What is being protected is more than just science, it is intellectual integrity and the teaching of the Church. You can make this false claim all day long that science must make statements about God, (who’s God you never of course explain), but it will never be right. **

 

[Cling2Cross]

Science << “Do you believe in the Big Bang, Theory of Evolution, birds used to be dinosaurs, global warming and the end of peak oil?” >>

Fundy << “No,” I said, wondering what would happen next. >>

Catholic Fundy Alert responded to by Cardinal Schonborn:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Cardinal Schonborn, Cat Lecture 11/13/2005)

more Cardinal Schonborn next post…

Phil P

AND YET THEY CONTINUE TO FIND THE EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH. I find it interesting that you would side with those who assume or presuppose billions of years because they are tied to a chair demanding that they give natural causes to everything. Science is biased in their assumptions and foundations that are presupposed to fit a worldview without God…but, clearly, the scriptures tell of a six day creation and God can do so as He pleases. I think you need to read up on what Creation Science is doing and finding.

I suppose that you do not believe in Noah’s flood either. I find it very interesting that Moses included something about a catastrophic event that took place at all. After all, scientists know that something did indeed happen…yet they say it was 65,000,000 years ago. If that was the case, how would Moses have know that he needed to include such an event in the record? He knew because 4500 years ago, there was a flood that wiped out the earth except for those on the ark (in addition that the Holy Spirit inspired his writings).

Does science explain people living to be 900+ years before the flood? The Bible does…for the earth was much different before the flood. It never rained…it seems that the earth was some sort of terrerium (if that is how you spell it)…what are palm tree fossils doing in Alaska…Tigers in Siberia…tropical plants at the poles??? The Bible has the answers that fit the evidence…most just choose to ignore it and throw it out; dimiss it and explain it away because of their presuppositions. The reason…they do not want God OR - they want to compromise with science.

There are plenty of other clocks out there that give the evidence of a young earth…they just need some attention, that’s all. And when people start to recognize the God that we know and see Him as a reality, they will finally see that He can do anything.

C2C

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11 KJV)

 

[rossum]

That’s interesting. 600 years ago the same community (maybe under a different name) thought the same thing about geocentrism!

So why is the opinion of a large community of learned men valid today, but invalid 600 years ago? What makes today’s opinions so different that you would bet your Church on it?

Funny, 600 years ago, the Church sided with the learned men, today it has not made such a statement (though some unofficially do have that opinion, obviously).

Science does not find THE TRUTH[sup]TM[/sup], all that science can find is the best explanation we have for the data currently available. That means that as the data currently available changes then the best scientific explanation we have also changes:“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

J. M. Keynes
I suggest that you have a read of The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov, which explains the scientific approach very well:"… when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

rossum

 

[hildegaard]

Please explain how to formulate an experiment that starts with the proposition you claim must be made: God is the author of what I am trying to investigate. Just one example will do. How does one bring God into the theoretical equation? You claim it must, so show us how to do it.

You do not need to do that, specifically. You can start with a hypothesis, perhaps: “the world is less than 15000 years old” or “the earth is not moving”, then see if you can find evidence to supprt or reject the hypothesis. In the case of the earth not moving, you will find loads of evidence, but science will not ask the question nor make the investigation. In fact what science did (in the case of the earth movement question) was to completely revamp science to cover the fact the the earth appears stationary (thus matter shrinks, time dilates, space warps, etc.). After all the smoke and mirrors, the earth appears to move!